Maximizing Strength of Friction Stir Spot Welded Bimetallic Joints of AA6061 Aluminum Alloy and Copper Alloy by Response Surface Methodology

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm

Email: editoriijme@ipasj.org
ISSN 2321-6441
A Publisher for Research Motivation........
Volume 3, Issue 12, December 2015
Maximizing Strength of Friction Stir Spot

Welded Bimetallic Joints of AA6061 Aluminum
Alloy and Copper Alloy by Response Surface
Methodology
S.Manickam1 , V.Balasubramanian2
1
Associate Professor, Department of Manufacturing Engineering,

Annamalai University, Annamalainagar-608002, India.
2
Professor, Department of Manufacturing Engineering,

Annamalai University, Annamalainagar-608002, India
ABSTRACT
Friction Stir Spot Welding (FSSW) is a variant of friction stir welding (FSW) process, in which the rotating tool is plunged into
a material under high forging force to create a bond. It is employed to join dissimilar alloys like aluminum and copper. As it is
a solid state welding process, it helps to eliminate defects found in fusion welding processes. FSSW finds extensive application
in the automobile and aerospace industries. In this investigation, an attempt was made to join aluminum alloy (AA6061) with
copper alloy (commercial grade) by FSSW process. The effects of the four major parameters of FSSW process, namely Tool
rotational speed (N), Plunge rate (R), Dwell time (T) and Tool diameter ratio (D) were explored in this investigation. An
empirical relationship was developed by response surface methodology (RSM) to predict strength of the welded joints
incorporating these parameters. Response graphs and contour plots were constructed to identify the optimized FSSW
parameters, so as to attain maximum strength in bimetallic joints of AA6061 aluminum and copper alloys.
Keywords: friction stir spot welding, copper alloy, aluminum alloy, bimetallic joint, response surface methodology
1. INTRODUCTION
Lightweight materials play an important role in the aircraft and automobile industries as they offer good performance
to weight characteristics [1]. However, it is difficult to weld light-weight metals, like aluminum with copper by
conventional fusion welding processes, as copper has high electrical and thermal conductivity. The light weight metals
were welded by resistance spot welding, laser spot welding and riveting. However, these methods employed to join
aluminum sheet metal have some disadvantages. Conventional resistance spot welding suffers from tool consumption
during welding, distortion due to heat, and poor weld strength; porosity defects cannot be avoided in laser spot welding;
riveting increases the weight and needs special tooling [2]. Friction stir welding (FSW) was developed by The Welding
Institute (TWI), UK in 1991 [3] [4]. It offers various advantages such as plastic deformation, good mechanical and
metallurgical properties, high joint efficiency, and eco-friendly process, which has received considerable attention in
recent times to weld aluminum alloys [5], [6], [7]. Friction stir spot welding (FSSW) is a variant of Friction Stir
Welding (FSW) process in which a series of solid state friction stir spot welds are made to join the dissimilar
overlapping plates, by a non-consumable rotating tool.
Arul et al. [8] investigated the failure mechanism of friction stir spot welded AA5754 aluminum alloy joints and
observed that the joint failure mechanism was necking and shearing. Pan et al [9] reported different failure modes like
interfacial separation at shallow insertion depth, nugget pullout at highest strength, and perimeter failure at deepest
insertion. Mitlin et al. [10] reported that tool pin plunge depth had a major effect on the failure mode of the joints and
minor effect on the joint shear strength. Badrinarayanan et al. [11] analyzed the effect of tool pin geometry on hook
formation. Karthikeyan and Balasubramanian [12] reported that different failure modes were observed in AA2024
aluminum alloy such as eyelet, partially curved, interfacial, and nugget pull out under various conditions, and the
nugget pullout failure was observed for the maximum TSFL value.
Yan et al. [13] showed that weld had three regions: plastic ring region, thermo mechanically affected zone, heat
affected zone and parent metal. Mustafa et.al [14] used Taguchi techniques to predict the maximum strength in high
density polyethylene sheet and analyzed the effect of process parameters on weld strength. Xiao Song et al [15]
employed different shoulder and pin plunge speeds, and observed that the shoulder plunge speed affected the hook
Page 15

ISSN 2321-6441
formation and tensile strength of weld, whereas there was no effect on the mechanical properties due to the pin plunge
speed. Zhang et al. [16] have further investigated the hooking phenomenon reported by Chen and Yazdanian [17],
where the effect of probe length, welding speed and rotational speed was studied. It was shown that a longer probe
length did not result in stronger joints, as sufficient plastic stirring occurred with probes slightly longer than the sheet
thickness. The most influential factors were found to be probe length and rotational speed. Babu et al. [18] investigated
the presence of Al clad layers and the base metal temper conditions, and found that these had no major effect on joint
formation and joint strength.
From the literature review, it is understood that Friction Stir Spot Welding (FSSW) process is gaining importance
worldwide to replace riveting and mechanical locking. Many investigators [12], [14], [19], [18], [20] have focused on
using design of experiments concept and Taguchi technique [19] to optimize FSSW process parameters for joining
similar alloys, especially aluminum alloys and magnesium alloys. However, the information available in open
literature on FSSW of bimetallic joints using aluminum alloys and copper alloys are very scanty. Keeping this in mind,
the present investigation was carried out to join AA6061 aluminum alloy with copper alloy by FSSW process and an
attempt was also made to maximize the strength of the above joints by employing Response Surface Methodology
(RSM).
2. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
AA6061 aluminum alloy sheets with a thickness of 2.45 mm and commercial copper sheet of 3.0mm thickness were
used as base alloys in this investigation. The sheets were cut to required size by shear-off machine, followed by surface
grinding to remove oxides and scales. The chemical composition and mechanical properties of the base alloys are
presented in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. Lap joints were fabricated as per the dimension given in Figure 1. The rolling
direction of the material was kept parallel to the loading directions, and the joints were initially secured with the help
of mechanical clamps. A non-consumable rotating tool made of high speed steel (HSS) was used to fabricate the lap
joints. The tools with concave shoulder diameters of 11, 14, 16, 18 and 21 mm and a 0.8 mm pitch metric, left hand
threaded pin of 4.5 mm diameter, as shown in Figure 2 were used to prepare the joints. An indigenously designed and
developed computer numerical controlled friction stir welding machine (4000 rpm, 22 kW, 6 t) was used to fabricate
the lap joints.
AA6061-T6
Aluminum alloy
Copper alloy
Figure 1 Dimensions of Lap shear tensile specimen
Figure 2 Photograph of tools used
Alloy
Zn
Table 1 Chemical composition (wt. %) of base alloys

Ti
Fe
Cu
Al
Mn
Si
Mg
Copper
9.15
0.01
0.02
90.73
--
--
--
--
AA6061
0.25
0.15
0.7
0.15
95.8
0.33
0.53
0.69
Page 16

ISSN 2321-6441
Table 2 Mechanical properties of base alloys

0.2% Yield
Tensile
Elongation in
Strength
strength
50 mm gauge
(MPa)
(MPa)
length
(%)
220
268
28
Alloy
Copper
AA 6061
276
310
Hardness @
0.5 kg
(Hv)
267
12
107
From the literature, the process parameters that influenced the strength of FSSW joints were identified as tool
rotational speed, plunge rate, dwell time and tool diameter ratio. A large number of trail experiments were conducted to
determine the feasible working range of the above parameters by varying one parameter, while keeping the others
constant. The working range was fixed based on the absence of visible defects and lower and upper tensile shear
fracture loads (TSFL). The working range of each parameter and their levels are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 Process parameters and their working range
Levels
Unit
Notation
-2
-1
0
Factor
Tool rotational speed
rpm
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Plunge rate
mm/min
Dwell time
sec
15
20
25
30
35
Tool diameter ratio
--
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
A central composite rotatable, four factor, five level factorial design matrix was employed to minimize the number of
experimental conditions. The experimental design matrix consisting of 30 sets of coded conditions (Table 4) and
comprising a full replication of four-factor factorial design of 16 points, 8 star points and 6 center points was used.
The upper and lower limits of the parameters were coded as +2 and -2 respectively. The coded value for intermediate
levels was calculated from the relationship,
Xi = 2[2X (Xmax+Xmin)] / [Xmax Xmin]
(1)
Where Xi is the required coded value of a variable X and X is the value of the variable from Xmin to Xmax. The joints
were welded as per the conditions dictated by the design matrix in a random order to avoid noise in the output
responses. For each condition, three specimens were fabricated and some of the welded joints are shown in Figure 3.
Lap shear tensile test was carried out in a 100 kN electromechanically controlled universal testing machine and the
specimen were loaded at the strain rate of 1.5 kN/min until the faying surface of specimen sheared off. The average of
the three tensile lap sheartested values was used for the further analysis. The Tensile Shear Fracture Load (TSFL) for
each condition is presented in Table 5, along with the corresponding photographs of the cross-sectional macrograph,
the top view of top sheet, the bottom view of top sheet and the top view of bottom sheet.
Figure 3 Fabricated FSSW joints
Page 17


ISSN 2321-6441
3. DEVELOPING AN EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIP

The tensile shear fracture load (TSFL) of friction stir spot welded AA6061 aluminum and copper alloys is a function of
the parameters, such as tool rotational speed (N), tool plunge rate (R), dwell time (T) and tool diameter ratio (D), and
can be expressed as
TSFL = f (N, R, T, D)
(2)
The second order polynomial equation used to represent the response surface Y is given by
Y = bo+bixi+bixi2 + bijxixj
(3)
The selected polynomial could be expressed as

TSFL = {bo+b1(N) +b2(R) +b3(T) +b4(D) +b12(NR) +b13(NT) +b14(ND) +b23(RT) +b24(RD)
+b11(N2) +b22(R2) +b33 (T2)+ b44 (D2)} kN
(4)
Where bo is the mean value of response, and, b1, b2, b3---b44 are linear interactions and square terms of factors. The
values of co-efficient were calculated using Design Expert 8 software at 95% confidence level. The significance of each
co-efficient was calculated from student t-test and p values, which are listed in Table 6. A value of Prob>F less than
0.05, indicates that the terms in the model are significant. If the values are greater than 0.10, it indicates that terms are
not significant. In this case, N, R, T, D, ND, N2, R2, T2, and D2 are the significant terms. The model is presented using
response surface methodology and 2D contour plots using ANOVA. The final empirical relationship was constructed
using only these significant interactions, and the developed final empirical relationship is given below
TSFL = {4.75 + 0.24(N) + 0.11 (R) + 0.23(T) + 0.13(D) - 0.017(N*D) - 0.32(N2)
- 0.19(R2) - 0.21(T2) - 0.15(D2)} kN
(5)
The adequacy of the model is tested by ANOVA. The results of ANOVA are given in Table 6, at the desired level of
confidence of 95%. The relationship may be considered to be adequate provided that the calculated value of the F ratio
and the calculated value of R ratio of the developed relationship do not exceed the tabulated value of R ratio for a
desired level of confidence, and, in this case, the model is found to be adequate.
The model F value of 849.98 implies that the model is significant. There is only a 0.01% chance that a model F value
this large could occur due to noise. The lack of fit F value of 0.65 implies that the lack of fit is insignificant. There is
only 73.91% chance that a lack of fit F values this large could occur due to noise. Each predicted value matches its
experimental value well, as shown in Figure 4. The Fishers F test with very low probability value demonstrates a very
high significance for the regression model.
The goodness of fit of the model is checked by the determination coefficient (R2). The coefficient of determination was
calculated to be 0.998 for response. This implies that 99.8% of the experimental values confirm the compatibility with
data as predicted by the model. TheR2 value should always be between0 to 1. If a model is statistically good the R2
value should be close to 1.0. Then adjusted R2 value reconstructs the expression with the significant terms. The value of
adjusted R2= 0.998 is also high and indicates high significance of the model.
Page 18

ISSN 2321-6441
Table 4 Design matrix and experimental results

Coded value
Trial
No.
N
(rpm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-1
+1
-1
+1
-1
+1
-1
+1
-1
+1
-1
+1
-1
+1
-1
+1
-2
+2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
+1
+1
-1
-1
+1
+1
-1
-1
+1
+1
-1
-1
+1
+1
0
0
-2
+2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
+1
+1
+1
+1
-1
-1
-1
-1
+1
+1
+1
+1
0
0
0
0
-2
+2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2
+2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1800
2200
1800
2200
1800
2200
1800
2200
1800
2200
1800
2200
1800
2200
1800
2200
1200
2200
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Actual Value
R
T
(mm/
(s)
min)
6
20
6
20
8
20
8
20
6
30
6
30
8
30
8
30
6
20
6
20
8
20
8
20
6
30
6
30
8
30
8
30
7
25
7
25
5
25
9
25
7
15
7
35
7
25
7
25
7
25
7
25
7
25
7
25
7
25
7
25
TSFL
(kN)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.07
3.65
3.39
3.89
3.59
4.10
3.85
4.34
3.44
3.91
3.69
4.14
3.88
4.35
4.10
4.52
2.99
3.92
3.79
4.18
3.44
4.38
3.88
4.42
4.74
4.72
4.75
4.71
4.79
4.76
Table 5 Photograph of fractured samples of copper and AA6061 alloy

Trial Cross-sectional
No macro structure
17
23
2
29
Welding
parameters
N=1200rpm
R=7mm/min
T=25s
D/d=3.5
Top View of Top

sheet
Bottom view of Top

Sheet
Top View of Bottom

sheet
TSFL
(kN)
2.99
N=2000rpm
R=7mm/min
T=25s
D/d=2.5
3.88
N=2000rpm
R=7mm/min
T=25s
D/d=3.5
4.79
Page 19

ISSN 2321-6441
The predicted R2 value is 0.9951 which implies that the model could explain 99% of the variability in prediction. This
is in reasonable agreement with the Adj.R2 of 0.9976. The value of coefficient of variation is low at 0.62 which
indicates that the deviation between experimental and predicted values is low. A ratio greater than 4 is desirable, to
indicate that the signal is adequate. In this investigation, the ratio is 99.498, which indicates an adequate signal. So,
this model can be used to navigate the design space.
Table 6 ANOVA test results
Source
Model
N
R
T
D
NR
NT
ND
RT
RD
TD
N2
R2
T2
D2
Residual
Lack of
fit
Pure error
Cor. total
Sum of
Squares (SS)
7.56
1.38
0.31
1.23
0.43
0.001
0.007
0.004
0.001
0.0025
0.0027
2.87
1.00
1.21
0.61
0.009
0.005
Degree of
Freedom
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
10
Mean Square
(MS)
0.54
1.38
0.31
1.23
0.43
0.0018
0.00075
0.004
0.001
0.0025
0.0027
2.87
1.00
1.21
0.61
0.006
0.0005
0.0041
7.57
Std.deviation
R-squared
Adj. R- squared
5
29
0.0008
0.025
0.9987
0.9976
F ratio
849.90
2169.46
481.90
1934.70
684.57
2.84
1.19
7.18
2.21
3.55
4.34
4518.67
1574.75
1899.22
967.83
0.65
p-value
(Prob >F)
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.1124
0.2924
0.0172
0.1574
0.0790
0.0547
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.7391
Pred. R- squared
Press
Mean
C.V
Adeq. precision
Whether
significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
--Significant
---Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Not
Significant
0.9951
0.037
4.05
0.62
99.498
4. OPTIMIZATION OF FSSW PARAMETERS

In this investigation, Response Surface Methodology (RSM) was used to optimize the process parameters. RSM is
collection of mathematical and statistical technique that is useful for designing a set of experiments, developing a
mathematical model, analyzing the values for the optimum combination of input parameters and expressing the values
graphically [21]. To obtain the influencing nature and optimized condition of the process on TSFL, the surface and
contour plots which are the indications of possible independence of factors have been developed for the proposed
empirical relation, considering two parameters in the middle level and two parameters in the X-axis and Y-axis as
shown in Figure 5.
Table 7 Estimated regressions co-efficients
Factors
Cofficient
Intercept
N-Tool rotational speed
R-plunge rate
T-dwell time
D-D
NR
NT
ND
RT
RD
4.75
0.24
0.11
0.23
0.13
-0.011
-0.006
-0.017
-0.003
-0.012
Page 20


ISSN 2321-6441
TD
N2
R2
T2
D2
-0.013
-0.32
-0.19
-0.21
-0.15
These response contours help in the prediction of the response (TSFL) of any zone in the design domain (Tien and Lin,
2006). The apex of the response plot shows the maximum achievable TSFL. A contour plot is produced to display the
region of the optimum factor setting for the second order response, and such a plot can be more complex, compared to
the simple series of parallel lines that can occur with first order models. Once the stationary point is found, it is usually
necessary to characterize the response surface in the immediate vicinity of the point. Characterization involves the
identification of whether the stationary point is a minimum response or maximum response or a saddle point. A
contour plot is useful to examine this stationary point. Contour plots play a very important role in the study of a
response surface. It is clear from the contour plot that when the TSFL increases with increasing tool rotational speed,
plunge rate and dwell time to a certain value and then decreases.
Figure 4 Correlation graph

It is also observed that the initial increase in the tool diameter ratio increases the TSFL to a certain value and further
increase of tool diameter ratio does not increase the TSFL further. By analyzing the response surface and contour plots
in Figure 5, the maximum achievable TSFL value is found to be 4.878 kN. The corresponding parameters that yield
this maximum value are tool rotational speed of 2094.88rpm, plunge rate of 7.26 mm/min, dwell time of 27.37 sec and
tool diameter ratio of 3.75. The higher F ratio value implies that the respective levels are more significant. From the F
ratio value, it can be concluded for the range considered in this investigation that tool rotational speed is the major
factor contributing to the maximization of tensile shear fracture load, followed by dwell time, tool diameter ratio and
plunge rate.
Page 21


ISSN 2321-6441
5 (a) Interaction effect of tool rotational speed and plunge rate
5 (b) Interaction effect of tool rotational speed and dwell time
5 (c) Interaction effect of tool rotational speed and tool diameter ratio
5 (d) Interaction effect of plunge rate and dwell time
Page 22


ISSN 2321-6441
5 (e) Interaction effect of plunge rate and tool diameter ratio
5 (f) Interaction effect of dwell time and tool diameter ratio

Figure 5 Response graphs and contour plots
The perturbation plot for the response TSFL of joints is illustrated in Figure 6. This plot provide a silhouette view of
the response and shows the change of TSFL when each FSSW parameters moves from the reference point, with all
other parameters held constant at the reference value. Design of experiment sets the reference point default at the
middle of the design space. Figure 5(a-f) indicates the response surface and contour plots, and presents the interaction
effect of any two input parameters on the TSFL. The maximum TSFL is obtained for higher tool rotational speed and
dwell time, with lower plunge rate and tool diameter ratio. This combination produces sufficient heat for metallurgical
phenomena such as grain coarsening (Rajkumar et al., 2010), and so the maximum TSFL was obtained at these levels.
Figure 6 Perturbation plot showing the effect of parameters on the TSFL
Page 23

ISSN 2321-6441
The macrograph and micrograph of the joint fabricated using the optimized parameters are displayed in Figure 7 to
demonstrate the feasibility of mechanically sound and metallurgical compatible bimetallic joints can be made using
FSSW process.
Table 8 Confirmation of test results
Expt.
Tool rotational
Plunge
Dwell
Tool diameter
TSFL
Error in
No.
speed
rate
time
Ratio
in kN
%
(N)
(R)
(T)
(D)
Actua Predicted
in rpm
in
in sec
l
mm/min
1
2036
7.00
28.0
3.50
4.80
4.79
+0.02
2
2095
7.25
27.4
3.75
4.88
4.85
+0.61
3
2013
6.80
26.5
4.00
4.82
4.84
-0.41
The developed empirical relationship is validated by fabricating FSSW joints using three random combinations of
parameters in the test range; the actual response was calculated as the average of three measured results. Table 8
summarizes the experimental values, the predicted values and the percentage of error. The validation results revealed
that the empirical relationship developed is quite accurate as the errors in prediction are very low.
Cu
e
d
c
b
(a)
Macrostructure
50m
50m
(b)
Stir zone of Al alloy
(c)
50m
(d)
TMAZ of Al alloy
Al
Stir zone of Cu alloy
50m
(e)
TMAZ of Cu alloy
Page 24

ISSN 2321-6441
50m
(f)
50m
HAZ of Al alloy
(g)
HAZ of Cu alloy
Figure 7 Optimized macrograph and micrograph of FSSW joint
5. CONCLUSIONS
i. An empirical relationship was developed using statistical techniques such as Design of Experiments, Analysis of
variance and RSM to predict the tensile lap shear strength of friction stir spot welded bimetallic joints of AA6061
aluminum and copper alloys incorporating important process parameters (at 95% confidence level).
ii. Maximum tensile lap shear strength of 4.79 kN was obtained at a tool rotational speed of 2000 rpm, a plunge rate of
7 mm/min, a dwell time of 25 s and tool diameter ratio of 3.5 (as per the experimental results)
iii. Of the four process parameters investigated, the tool rotational speed was found to have the greatest influence on
tensile shear fracture load, followed by dwell time, tool diameter ratio and plunge rate (as per the F ratio).
References
[1] Y. Tozaki, Y. Uematsu and K. Tokaji, A newly developed tool without probe for friction stir spot welding and its
performance, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 210 No. 6-7, pp. 844851, 2010.
[2] N. Nguyen, D. Y. Kim and H. Y. Kim, Assessment of the failure load for an AA6061-T6 friction stir spot welding
joint, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol.
225 No. 10, pp. 1746 1756, 2011.
[3] W. M. Thomas, E. D. Nicholas and J. C. Needham, Friction stir welding, International Patent PCT/GB92102203
and Great Britain Patent 9125978.8, 1991.
[4] R. S. Mishra and Z. Y. Ma, Friction stir welding and processing, Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 50
No.1-2, pp. 178, 2005.
[5] C. J. Dawes, An introduction to friction stir welding and its development, Welding and Metal Fabrication, Vol.
63 No.1, pp. 1216, 1995.
[6] C. G. Rhodes, M. W. Mahoney, W. H. Bingel, R. A. Spurling and C. C. Bampton, Effects of friction stir welding
on microstructure of 7075 aluminum, Scripta Materialia, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 6975, 1997.
[7] C. J. Dawes and W. M. Thomas, Friction stir process welds aluminum alloys: the process produces low-distortion,
high quality, low-cost welds on aluminum, Welding Journal, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 4145, 1996.
[8] S. G. Arul, T. Pan, P-C. Lin, J. Pan, Z. Feng and M. L. Santella, Microstructures and Failure Mechanisms of Spot
Friction Welds in Lap-Shear Specimens of Aluminum 5754 Sheets, SAE Special publications SP-1959, SAE
International, Warrendale, PA, paper 2005-01-1256, 2005.
[9] T. Pan, A. Joaquin, D. E. Wilkosz, L. Reatheford, J. M. Nicholson, Z. Feng, M. L. Santella, Spot friction welding
for sheet aluminum joining, 5th International Symposium on Friction Stir Welding, The Welding Institute, Metz,
France, paper no. 11A-1, 2004.
[10] D. Mitlin, V. Radmilovic, T. Pan, J. Chen, Z. Feng, M. L. Santella, Structure properties relations in spot friction
welded (also known as friction stir spot welded) 6111 aluminum, Materials Science and Engineering, A 441(1):
79-96, 2006.
[11] H. Badrinarayanan, Q. Yang and S. Zhu, Effect of tool geometry on static strength of friction stir spot-welded
aluminum alloy, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol. 49(2), pp. 142-148, 2009.
[12] R. Karthikeyan and V. Balasubramanian, Prediction of the optimized friction stir spot welding process parameters
for joining AA2024 aluminum alloy using RSM, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
51: 173-183, 2010.
[13] K. Yan, Z. Y. Li, and J. Fu, The metal flow behavior of swing friction stir spot welding joint, Journal of Jiangsu
University of Science and Technology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 3538, 2008.
Page 25


ISSN 2321-6441
[14] Mustafa Kemal Belichi, Ahemet Irfan Yukler, Memduh Kurtulmulus, Optimizing welding parameters friction stir
spot weld of high density poly ethylene sheet, Materials and Design, 32, 4074-4079, 2011.
[15] Xiao song, Limingke-Li-Fenchengliu and Chunping Huang, Effect of plunge speed on hook geometries and
Mechanical properties in friction stir spot welding of AA6061-T6 aluminum sheets, International Journal
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 71, pp. 2003-2010, 2014.
[16] G-f. Zhang, W. Su, J. Zhang, Z-x. Wei and J-x. Zhang, Effects of shoulder on interfacial bonding during friction
stir lap welding of aluminum thin sheets using tool without pin, Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of
China, 20(12):22232228, 2010.
[17] Z. W. Chen and S. Yazdanian, Friction stir lap welding: material flow, joint structure and strength, Journal of
Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 55/2, pp. 629-637, 2012.
[18] S. Babu, V. S. Sankar, G. D. Janaki Ram, P. V. Venkitakrishnan, G. Madhusudhan Reddy and K. Prasad Rao,
Microstructures and Mechanical Properties of Friction Stir Spot Welded Aluminum Alloy AA2014, Journal of
Materials Engineering and Performance, Vol. 22(1), pp. 71-84, 2013.
[19] C. L. Tien and S. W. Lin, Optimization of process parameters of titanium dioxide film by response surface
methodology, Optics Communications, Vol. 266, pp. 574-581, 2006.
[20] S. Rajkumar, C. Muralidharan and V. Balasubramanian, Establishing empirical relationships to predict grain size
and tensile strength of friction stir welded AA 6061-T4 aluminum alloy joints, Transactions of Nonferrous
Metals Society of China, 20:1863-72, 2010.
[21] A. I. Khuri and J. Cornell, Response surfaces; design and analysis, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1996.
AUTHOR
Dr.V.Balasubramanian is working currently as Professor, Department of Manufacturing
Engineering, Annamalai University, Annamalainagar, India. He graduated from Government
College of Engineering, Salem, University of Madras in 1989 and obtained his post graduation
from College of Engineering Guindy, Anna University, Chennai in 1992. He obtained his Ph.D
from Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM), Chennai in 2000. He has 23 years of teaching
experience and 18 years of research experience. He has published more than 300 papers in
SCOPUS indexed Journals and supervised 18 Ph.D scholars. His areas of interest are: Materials Joining, Surface
Engineering and Nanomaterials.
S. Manickam is working as Associate Professor, Department of Manufacturing Engineering,
Annamalai University, Annamalainagar, India. He obtained his Bachelors in Mechanical
Engineering from Madurai-Kamaraj University and Masters in Production Engineering from
Annamalai University. He is teaching in Annamalai University for over 20 years. His areas of
interest are: Solid State Materials Joining and Friction Stir Welding.
Page 26

Maximizing Strength of Friction Stir Spot Welded Bimetallic Joints of AA6061 Aluminum Alloy and Copper Alloy by Response Surface Methodology

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Maximizing Strength of Friction Stir Spot Welded Bimetallic Joints of AA6061 Aluminum Alloy and Copper Alloy by Response Surface Methodology

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm

A Publisher for Research Motivation........

Volume 3, Issue 12, December 2015